Who is John Kerry? and why he is a loser...
 

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 14:57:04 +0000, Bart Senior wrote:

It's true. What about all the pardons?

Yup, along with Clinton's 140 pardons, there is Reagan's 393 pardons.
Pardons are a dirty little secret that Clinton didn't start. How about
Bush I covering his ass:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3...319&s=20010306

Who is John Kerry? and why he is a loser...
 

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Clinton supported NAFTA, as well as most did most economists.

Many didn't. The politicians chose their economists wisely when touting the
benefits of NAFTA. Ross Perot opposed it, but no one listened to him. And
he was right--it has benefitted Canada and Mexico, but not the US, at least
not in terms of high-paying jobs.

It's been good for the US.

Strange position from a liberal, considering it has resulted in a
substantial net loss of good US jobs and benefitted only the largest of
corporations. Are you becoming a closet capitalist, Jon?

You now claim to be anti-free trade,
except when it suits you of course?

Don't read into my posts things there are not there. I cast no aspersions
to being pro and anti-free trade. Only that the loss of jobs was not
necessarily any more W's fault than anyone elses. The reasons for job
losses are myriad, and not just happening during the Bush administration.

What's the problem with China? I don't get the connection between
China and Clinton-bashing.

Again you're putting words in my mouth. I wasn't Clinton-bashing, but only
pointing out that he cost jobs, too. China has probably taken more
manufacturing jobs than any other factor. Most of our stateside producers
(now importers) of low-tech goods, such as shoes, clothing, sporting goods,
etc., are now made by Chinese citizens, not US citizens. That's were the
largest single block of the jobs have gone.

Your, and others', tendency to blame Bush for the majority of job losses is
not only disingenuous, but in error.

Bush inherited an economy that didn't need a tax cut, that didn't needed
to be pushed into a recession.

It was already receding. Check your facts. The last year of the Clinton
admin. saw a significant downtrend, and it continued, as any downtrend will,
into the Bush administration.

Thanks Bush. The US lost millions of jobs
because of him.

Don't blow smoke up my ass. You have absolutely no evidence of this, not to
mention any cogent reason for it. Bush inherited a declining economy, and
9/11 sealed the fate of it. But go ahead and blame Bush. It's the good
liberal thing to do, albeit completely without merit.

Thanks for nothing. I don't see him reversing NAFTA
if that's what the problem was. Max, get your facts straight before slam
me for telling the truth. Bush lied about Iraq, about WMDs, and pretty
much abdicated the search for Usama. Instead of putting in 100,000
troops in Afganistan, he put in 10K. He sent the 100K to Iraq, a
country that had no WMDs and was contained.

Any attempt to respond to such liberal dogma would be pointless. You do
regurgitate the mantra well, Jon, however. Parroted, knee-jerk liberalism is
alive and well. Ever had an original thought, Jon?

Oh, I forgot. Clinton lied about a blow job, and the ensuing right-wing
fueled witchhunt cost us $70 million. Too bad because I'm sure Henry
Hyde could have paid a hooker $70 or less and got the same thing.

While Clinton gave us countless reason to bash him, that's not my intent.
That you vilify someone like Bush for completely unsubstantiated reasons,
but defend Clinton against a carved-in-stone record is amusing.

Max

Who is John Kerry? and why he is a loser...
 

"Vito" wrote in message


"Maxprop" wrote

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote
Clinton lied about a blow job. Bush lied about
WMDs

You cannot provide one scintilla of evidence that he lied about WMDs.
He
was wrong, yes. He was probably misinformed, yes. He probably told his
intel providers that he wanted a reason for attacking Iraq, yes. But he
lied? Show me the evidence, not just your left-wing dogmatic opinion.

By that logic, Clintoon didn't "lie" about the BJ - he just didn't
consider
a BJ "sex".

Bark up some other tree, Vito, or is it Guido? :-) I accepted Clinton's
explanation at the time. Sex, as most people define it, is sexual
intercourse. He didn't do the nasty with that hog, so his statement was
accurate in the modern vernacular.

Max

Who is John Kerry? and why he is a loser...
 

"DSK" wrote in message

"DSK" wrote
Maxprop is convinced that I must be a libby-rull because I disagree with
his
caveman fascism.

Maxprop wrote:
LOL. I am convinced you are a liberal because you are. Simple,
concise,
and to the point. Denial, OTOH, is your bailiwick.


Really? I think you should put up or shut up. What ideals have I
espoused that are liberal? Name at least three.... or as a corollary,
name at least three conservative principles that I have disavowed. By
"conservative" I mean really conservative, not fascist whacko-ism.

This is pointless, because you'll accuse me of "fascist whackoism" no matter
what I say. But I'm a glutton for liberal punishment, so here goes.

1) You vilified Reagan for his stance against welfare. I would like you to
show me where in the US Constitution it provides for taking money from some
and giving it to others. Welfare is clearly a socialist concept, and
requires an expansion of government (local, state, or federal, depending
upon the administrator) to administer the program. You further labeled
Reagan's stance on welfare as racist. Why? Are you implying that welfare
is the sole province of minorities?

2) You branded so-called "Reaganomics" as absurd. The concept is nothing
new. It's called supply-side economics, and it has been around for
centuries. I found an obscure reference to it in a yellowed book on early
economics of the Continent (that would be Europe for those of you who
graduated from public schools). The book was copywritten in the early
1900s, but dealt with the period beginning with the signing of the Magna
Charta. Supply-side economics is generally a conservative mantra.

3) You've made reference to other topics--too many to enumerate here--that
seem to imply a belief in larger, more expansive government. Conservatives
generally favor smaller government and greater limitation of its powers.

Now, in the words of Bill Clinton: "deny, deny, deny." But to paraphrase
my earlier comment, a pig isn't going to show at the Westminster, regardless
of your contention that it is, indeed, a poodle. Despite your belief to the
contrary, Rush Limbaugh, Ollie North, and Sean Hannity have a far better
grasp of conservatism than you.

Max

Who is John Kerry? and why he is a loser...
 

"DSK" wrote in message

FamilySailor wrote:
hummmmm... a funny observation.....

Call someone a liberal and it is fighting words, call them conservative
and
they push their chest out with pride and smile real big.........

Just an observation.....

Depends on who it is. In my case, I am not insulted to be called a
liberal, I just think it is a good example of why "Maxprop" is not
really a conservative but is just a fascist whacko dumbass.

Another observation: Doug resorts to ad hominem attacks when his hackles
get raised, leading one to conclude that he really is offended by being
labelled a liberal.

A sailor must observe the facts around him. You cannot plot a course by
declaring which direction the wind must be blowing or where reefs should
ideologically be.

Heed your own advice, Doug. I couldn't have said it better.

Max

Who is John Kerry? and why he is a loser...
 

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Good for you. In that case, you should be voting for Kerry.

I very well may. But I'm watching what is going to happen in Congress, too.
If it looks as if it's going back to the left, I'll vote for W.

Max

Who is John Kerry? and why he is a loser...
 

"Bart Senior" wrote in message

That makes a certain amount of sense, except for one thing.

Taxes keep rising, so the damage once done, can never be
repaired

Connecticut had no state income tax. Then it was added and
sales tax was lowered. Now the talk is to raise sales tax again.

The old bait and switch.

The question remains--where is all the money going?

Down the political toilet, for the most part. Much of the money democrats
wish to spend is on social programs to insure votes among the disadvantaged,
which in turn insures their perpetuation in Congress. Much of the money
republicans wish to spend is on projects that benefit those corporations and
individuals who helped them gain office. And members of both parties fill
the porkbarrel to overflowing to make themselves look good at home. As I
said: down the crapper.

I don't know about you, but I'm very, very tired of paying for all this.

Max

Who is John Kerry? and why he is a loser...
 

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Simply stupid. So you pay less. Good for you. Except... you obviously
don't give a **** about anyone else. Bush has been bad for the US in
many, many ways.

Oh no, Jon, I care about everyone else.
Oh no, Jon, Bush has been good for the US in many, many ways.

(Now, don't your statements sound as completely idiotic as my own? Make
cogent points if you will, Jon, but put a sock in the thoughtless liberal
dogma.)

Max

Who is John Kerry? and why he is a loser...
 

Oh, I forgot... I *am* a liberal. Sorry. Actually, I'm a capitalist and a
liberal. Overall, NAFTA was good for the US. Job loss did result, but
that was to be expected in some cases.

True, there were job losses during Clinton, but far more during Bush.

I don't believe we were in a recession during Clinton. It happened
well into Bush. The economy was slowing during the latter of Clinton,
but it was not a recession. Bush, I submit, made it worse. As a result,
2M jobs were lost. We have a long way to go before those are
regained. Didn't intend to put words in your mouth... sorry.

I wouldn't want to blow anything up your ass... really, but it is a
matter of record that Bush made the situation worse with his stupid
tax cut that benefited no one who needed a lift.

I think there are plenty of reasons to vilify Bush. I've done so many
times. They're worth repeating, but it's late and I need to get up
early.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Clinton supported NAFTA, as well as most did most economists.

Many didn't. The politicians chose their economists wisely when touting
the
benefits of NAFTA. Ross Perot opposed it, but no one listened to him.
And
he was right--it has benefitted Canada and Mexico, but not the US, at
least
not in terms of high-paying jobs.

It's been good for the US.

Strange position from a liberal, considering it has resulted in a
substantial net loss of good US jobs and benefitted only the largest of
corporations. Are you becoming a closet capitalist, Jon?

You now claim to be anti-free trade,
except when it suits you of course?

Don't read into my posts things there are not there. I cast no aspersions
to being pro and anti-free trade. Only that the loss of jobs was not
necessarily any more W's fault than anyone elses. The reasons for job
losses are myriad, and not just happening during the Bush administration.

What's the problem with China? I don't get the connection between
China and Clinton-bashing.

Again you're putting words in my mouth. I wasn't Clinton-bashing, but
only
pointing out that he cost jobs, too. China has probably taken more
manufacturing jobs than any other factor. Most of our stateside producers
(now importers) of low-tech goods, such as shoes, clothing, sporting
goods,
etc., are now made by Chinese citizens, not US citizens. That's were the
largest single block of the jobs have gone.

Your, and others', tendency to blame Bush for the majority of job losses
is
not only disingenuous, but in error.

Bush inherited an economy that didn't need a tax cut, that didn't needed
to be pushed into a recession.

It was already receding. Check your facts. The last year of the Clinton
admin. saw a significant downtrend, and it continued, as any downtrend
will,
into the Bush administration.

Thanks Bush. The US lost millions of jobs
because of him.

Don't blow smoke up my ass. You have absolutely no evidence of this, not
to
mention any cogent reason for it. Bush inherited a declining economy, and
9/11 sealed the fate of it. But go ahead and blame Bush. It's the good
liberal thing to do, albeit completely without merit.

Thanks for nothing. I don't see him reversing NAFTA
if that's what the problem was. Max, get your facts straight before slam
me for telling the truth. Bush lied about Iraq, about WMDs, and pretty
much abdicated the search for Usama. Instead of putting in 100,000
troops in Afganistan, he put in 10K. He sent the 100K to Iraq, a
country that had no WMDs and was contained.

Any attempt to respond to such liberal dogma would be pointless. You do
regurgitate the mantra well, Jon, however. Parroted, knee-jerk liberalism
is
alive and well. Ever had an original thought, Jon?

Oh, I forgot. Clinton lied about a blow job, and the ensuing right-wing
fueled witchhunt cost us $70 million. Too bad because I'm sure Henry
Hyde could have paid a hooker $70 or less and got the same thing.

While Clinton gave us countless reason to bash him, that's not my intent.
That you vilify someone like Bush for completely unsubstantiated reasons,
but defend Clinton against a carved-in-stone record is amusing.

Max

Who is John Kerry? and why he is a loser...
 

Well, don't forget that it's easy to bash Clinton. He got a blow job in
the White House. Now, that's never happened before, right?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 14:57:04 +0000, Bart Senior wrote:

It's true. What about all the pardons?

Yup, along with Clinton's 140 pardons, there is Reagan's 393 pardons.
Pardons are a dirty little secret that Clinton didn't start. How about
Bush I covering his ass:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3...319&s=20010306